Lib-Con love after the next election?

Rhoda Klapp

Blimey.

mac

"As for the Tories and their wider strategy, shacking up with the Lib Dems makes a whole load of sense."

That there is presentational advantage in the immediate term is a plausible argument, but a ConLib 'understanding' surely lends credence to TGF's and Verity's trenchant line here about the true nature of Cameron's politics, don't you think?

Steve

How much sense does it really make? The Tories should be aiming to take Lib Dem seats in the South. Unless they strike up a pact to let the Lib Dems have a clean shot at taking Labour seats in hostile Northern seats such as Newcastle and Liverpool.

Walsingham's Ghost

Never trust the Lib Dems - their natural home is with Labour - leave them to it...

JONNY

'but a ConLib 'understanding' surely lends credence to TGF's and Verity's trenchant line here about the true nature of Cameron's politics'

So the lines are drawn.
Do we bend over backwards to placate the Verity's and TGF's of this world?
And lose badly.
Or oust Brown and seize power by securing the middle ground. Even at the price of a Tory-Lib-Dem coalition?

Austin Barry

What a frightful photo. I used to pull that face when eyeing-up the talent at Soho discos circa 1964.

David

"ConLib 'understanding' surely lends credence to TGF's and Verity's trenchant line here about the true nature of Cameron's politics, don't you think?"

Their "trenchant line" would have almost every Conservative leader prior to Thatcher labeled a socialist. The last thing a party wishing to be succesful should do is listen to them.

An open and pragmatic approach is always the way forward, and this includes recognising the fact that a party label is just that, and that members of different parties can and will agree on substantive issues. Where that is the case, co-operation is in the best interests of the country. The divisive ideological war of purity advocated by Verity and TGF most certainly is not.

Rhoda Klapp

"Even at the price of a Tory-Lib-Dem coalition?"

Well, why not put Lab in there too, if it is the centre ground that you are after?

What Verity and TGF (and myself) want is to know what policies parties stand behind so we know who to vote for. We don't seem to be able to find out from the Tories (or the other two). That's why I ask my two questions, which I'm sure I don't need to repeat so soon.

mac

Jonny and David,

Cameron was trumpeted - indeed, arguably installed - as Heir to Blair. That, you'll remember, is the 'trust me, I'm a straight kinda guy' and my party's 'whiter than white' Blair.
I wish I could confidently share in your pragmatism and intuition, but there's a worrying lack of evidence that this characterisation of Cameron as a Blairite centrist is definitely wide of the mark.

I agree the urgent need to despatch Brown and his appalling crew of wreckers, and I'm not looking for Attila the Hun to be Tory leader. Nonetheless, some surer sign of and commitment to a fundamental reconsideration of the policies that have knee-capped Britain since 1997 than cooperation with the Lib-Dems would be reassuring.

Pragmatism and trust and taking movers and shakers at their word haven't served us too well of late, David. I'd like to see a clearer way forward before I have to submit my ballot paper. And I shan't expect too much clarity in the various party manifestos, all of which will be PR and spin exercises writ large.

JONNY

'Well, why not put Lab in there too, if it is the centre ground that you are after?'
No Rhoda I want Labour OUT.
I want a change of government, with a chance of being elected.
I want US in. And I'm not playing games.
I want an alternative to the ghastliness of now.
Don't be too misled by talk of 'policies'.
Personally I prefer to talk about beliefs.
Principle of which is freedom from excessive state control, prying and supervision.
I'm pretty sure that Ca1meron is on the right side of the argument as far as these things go.

Kevyn Bodman

What Verity and TGF and Rhoda (and myself,too) want is to know what policies parties stand behind.

Stuff 'bipartisanship-in-government'. Make a forthright case, offer it to the electorate and let them decide.

How do you get bi-partsanship between me on one side, who wouldn't spend another pound on bailouts and people on the other side who'd give banks and car manufacturers and who knows what other businesses who knows what in terms of aid?

How do you get bi-partisanship between me, believing as I do that the ID card scheme and the database State are the worst manifestations of government in my lifetime, and people on the other side who think it doesn't really matter?

There are a couple of digs above at Verity.
I agree with her most of the time, not all the time. And she makes it clear what she thinks,and hers is the first name I look for on these threads.Long may she keep commenting in the same style.

There is an excellent article by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail about the recent rise in support for the BNP, which is a nasty racist authoritarian party.
Melanie thinks one of the causes is the failure of major parties to address the issues that reallly concern the electorate.
I agree and that's partly why I take the stance I do, and distust Cameron.
Get out and MAKE THE CASE for why anyone should vote.

Manfredo

I'm skeptical. The history of British politics suggests that there have only ever been two parties--Tories and anti-Tories.

The "right" of the Lib Dems consists of people who mostly agree with the Conservative Party, but who just cannot see themselves as "Tories".

I don't think Cameron is the man to alter 300 years of history.

Verity

What you are recommending is a one-party state with some minor, fiddly, irrelevant differences between the governing components.

No. thanks. Clear blue water is what the conservatively inclined hunger for. What you are recommending is Sweden.

Verity

Jonny writes: "I'm pretty sure that Ca1meron is on the right side of the argument as far as these things go."

How do you know? Did you go to a seance?

Rhoda Klapp

If that's what Cameron wants, he only has to say so to get my vote. But I don't know his beliefs, or his policies. That's why I want to know what he will reverse. It's not too much to ask for someone who presumes to want my vote, is it?

Of course, my vote doesn't matter, this place would elect a tory if they put up a monkey. Which they did, 'til he went off to be a mayor somwwhere.

David

"Clear blue water is what the conservatively inclined hunger for"

No it isn't. What the conservatively inclined hunger for, as evidence by the last 200 years of the Conservative Party, is pragmatism to enable stablility and good governance. Ideological purity tends to be the preserve of radicals. Hence the constant splits on the left, as an illustration.

David

"some surer sign of and commitment to a fundamental reconsideration of the policies that have knee-capped Britain since 1997 "

Really? The fundamentals behind the post-97 policy landscape in economic terms is the post-Thatcherite neo-liberal economic consensus.

Now, unless you are disputing that, the most you want the Conservatives to do is to ensure that what regulation there is is proper and targeted. More than that, and you are looking to repudiate the governments of the 1980s and 90s.

London Calling

Nick Clegg looks like a baby who has just been burped in this photo... awwwww Peter how could you?

Watch out though, he just might outgrow his romper suit and leave the opposition behind with their dummies hanging by a string.

Assume nothing...expect the unexpected is the motto of our times.....

D iversity

If there is no clear majority in the next Parliament (that is the rather big assumption this thread started with), how about trying for a Con-Lab coalition? Quite a few of the NewLabs are very close to Tory positions on policy; a good deal closer than the LibDems. The Labour left is overdue to split off and wander into the wilderness. If it worked, the new grouping (later to unite as the People's Party?)would have a long, secure future ahead.

Ray

Just remember the Lib-Dems are the political equivalent of the proverbial bar of soap in the bath.

Austin Barry

It's quite ghastly: the Lib-Dems slinking about wondering whom to fellate to achieve some fugitive form of power. And truth is whichever party or hybrid assumes power it will simply be more of the same vapid politics, slightly tweaked, on the road to Dystopia-stan.

wrinkled weasel

This sounds terrible. I am with Rhoda Klapp et al.

It's choice we voters want, not some coalition of invertebrates who flap from one ill-considered trifle to another, faster than a cocotte's panties in a Pigalle knocking shop.

David Lindsay

Clearly no fantasies about a Cameron landslide here.

Lib Dems are mostly local communitarians and populists, and giving each of them the little thing that he or she wants on his or her patch would not necessarily be the worst way to shore up a majority, to say the least.

Individual Lib Dems also do sterling work on pet causes, and again a government could do a lot of good by striking the relevant deals in order to keep itself going; look forward to the opening up of the family courts, to a Coroner's Inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly, and so forth.

No one can deny the Lib Dems' prophetic voice against the lunatic foreign policy of the Blair years, a significant and most welcome break with their own record in the Nineties.

And dare we even hope for Vince Cable, if not as Chancellor, then certainly in a very senior position dealing with economic policy?

But the Lib Dems AS A PARTY are Eurofanatical, anti-family, pro-crime and pro-drugs. So yes, they are the perfect coalition partners for David Cameron.

JONNY

Clear blue water, oh yes!
Thanks Verity, I'd almost forgotten.
Was it not the slogan, or aspiration that never won an election and never will.
Because outside a few Far Right Fanatics who the heck wants clear blue water?
These days you csn't even find it at Positano.

Verity

Jonny writes: "Because outside a few Far Right Fanatics who the heck wants clear blue water?" I thought Tony Blair and Obama needed it to walk on.

No, not the Lib Dems

No, no, no, not the Lib-dumbs, perlease!

My only experience of the L-ds was with a prospective District Council candidate.

His PR sheet (manifsto) promised reforms of everything in sight, including parking arrangements, on the premise that they know what is needed in the district.

I challenged him on parking, asking what the policy would be on parking charges for disabled blue-badge holders.

His response was indicative of their dictatorial attitude; it was to the effect that whilst it was an area of concern they couldn't say what the policy would be until they'd got their hands on council funding and then they'd give it some consideration.

So, vote for us and we'll then and only then tell you how your money will be spent.

JONNY

Verity
It's a soound marketing principle that if the punters want lager, you don't pour Guiness down their throat.
ergo:
If they don't want clear blue water, you sell them the effervescent pinko variety.
Boring I know, but we've already lost 3 elections with our clear blue water.
I detect a determination to win this time. Not ideal, I grant -but realpolitik needs must

Verity

Jonny - I detect no such determination. Certainly, Cameron (which means shrimp in Spanish, btw) wants to be PM and thinks that, as the heir to Blair, the British voters will oblige him. But detect no hunger for Cameron and his non-policies among the electorate. This is why the disaffected left is looking elsewhere. - and not to the Tories. The Tories, like me, are also looking elsewhere.

Stephen

Dr Cable used to be a member of the Labour Party - this emerged from his Desert Island Discs appearance (which was actually rather good). This suggests more congruence with what we used to think of as the "Social Democrat" wing of the LP than with the Tories. I don't know what Clegg believes (or Cameron, for that matter). The key thing is getting out of the EU, and the LDs would surely never agree to that.

I think this is "froth and bubble".